Court limits BP boss over oil blast

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that former BP chairman John Browne cannot be questioned without limits about his knowledge of the oil giant’s deadly Texas City refinery accident.

The Supreme Court’s ruling left open the possibility that Lord Browne could be deposed under an agreement that specifies the conditions for questioning the former oil executive.

However, a lawyer for injured workers who have been trying to question Mr Browne since 2006 said he did not think he would be able to speak to the peer under any circumstances.

The injured workers’ lawyers have been trying to take Lord Browne’s deposition - a sworn statement given under questioning – arguing he had unique knowledge about budget cuts and other company decisions that contributed to equipment failures at the plant and created the conditions that caused the explosion in 2005 which killed 15 workers and injured more than 170.

London-based BP has said Lord Browne does not have any such knowledge. Exxon Mobil and several business groups filed a brief in support of BP, arguing such depositions would hurt corporate management and would discourage companies from moving to Texas.

Workers’ lawyers and BP had agreed that Lord Browne would have to answer questions only if he had unique knowledge about the accident. The agreement also said he could be questioned only for one hour, by telephone.

In October 2006, state District Judge Susan Criss in Galveston set aside the agreement and ordered that Lord Browne be deposed for as long as necessary and in any location. BP appealed.

“The trial court abused its discretion in setting aside a valid discovery agreement without good cause,” visiting Justice David Gaultney wrote for the court in its unanimous 9-0 decision.

The court ruled that even if Lord Browne had unique knowledge, BP could still insist on the deposition being done under the restrictions of the agreement.

Brent Coon, a lawyer for many of the injured workers who have sued BP, said he did not expect a favourable ruling.

“I’m still very disappointed,” he said. “This CEO continued to inject himself in the facts of this case throughout the litigation. All that aside, he is no longer the CEO. There is no reason in the world for him to be protected.”

Lord Browne stepped down in May.

BP spokesman Neil Chapman said the company was informing Lord Browne of the court’s decision.

“We thank the court for considering the issue and are reviewing the decision,” Mr Chapman said in a brief statement.

In a joint statement, leaders of employment and consumer groups expressed disappointment in the court’s ruling.

“In Texas, the value of personal responsibility is sacrosanct. No one should be above having to answer fully and completely for their actions,” said the statement from the Texas AFL-CIO, Texas Watch, Texans for Public Justice and Texas Progress Council.

The Supreme Court directed Criss to enforce the original agreement that would order an hour-long telephone deposition of Lord Browne, if he had unique knowledge.

Mr Coon said he planned on asking for the one-hour deposition, but did not believe it would ever occur.

The Supreme Court questioned whether workers’ lawyers had shown that Browne has the unique knowledge needed to justify a deposition.

The explosion at the plant, about 40 miles south east of Houston, happened after a piece of equipment called a blowdown drum overfilled with highly-flammable liquid hydrocarbons.

The excess liquid and vapour hydrocarbons were then vented from the drum and ignited as the isomerisation unit – a device that boosts the octane in petrol - started up. Alarms and gauges that were supposed to warn of the overfilled equipment did not work properly.

BP lawyers are to appear in Houston federal court next month as a judge is set to decide whether to accept a plea agreement, including a proposed £25 million fine, as criminal punishment for the deadly blast.